Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21522121›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Clinical oncology2011

Clinical implications of cancer self-seeding.

Elizabeth Comen, Larry Norton, Joan Massagué

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Clinical oncology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 156 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
156citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

156 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Mechanisms of metastatic colorectal cancer.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2024
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Resolving tumor evolution: a phylogenetic approach.Journal of the National Cancer Center · 2024
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

96 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Elizabeth ComenDepartment of Medicine, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and the Weill College of Medicine of Cornell University, New York, NY 10021, USA.
Larry Norton
Joan Massagué

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Most metastatic cancers are incurable--a fact that underscores the limitations of our existing paradigms for understanding metastasis. In this Review, we use breast cancer to explore many of the enigmas revealed by these existing paradigms. Traditionally, metastatic models describe metastasis as a unidirectional process, whereby cancer cells leave a primary tumor and unidirectionally seed metastasis in regional lymph nodes or distant sites. By contrast, recent data indicate that metastasis is a multidirectional process whereby cancer cells can seed distant sites as well as the primary tumor itself. This later process, known as 'self-seeding,' has been validated in diverse experimental models. Here, we show that the self-seeding model may answer many of the mysteries inherent to cancer metastasis. Indeed, reframing our understanding of metastasis within the self-seeding model offers new opportunities for prevention and cure of metastatic cancer.

Indexed as

Neoplasm SeedingAnimalsBreast NeoplasmsDisease ProgressionFemaleHumansNeoplastic Cells, Circulating

Identifiers

PMID21522121

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.